Go to content

2 Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage

2.1 Definition

The concept of carbon capture (CC) refers to the capture of CO2 from ambient air or point sources, such as gas streams or flue gases. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) means that CO2 that is captured is trans­ported to and injected into geo­logical formations for the purpose of permanent storage (EU, 2009). Carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) refers to the use of captured CO2 in products, for example in fuels, chemicals and construction materials (EC, 2024c). Different abbreviations are used when activities rely on biogenic CO2 or CO2 captured directly from ambient air for permanent storage (bio-CCS, DACCS) or utilisation (bio-CCU, DACCU). Carbon Capture, Utilisation and/​or Storage (CCUS) is an umbrella term referring to all these technologies, meaning that captured CO2 is either permanently stored or used for products (EC, 2025a; IEA, 2025; NCM, 2022).

2.2 Reporting of emissions and removals

CO2 flows and carbon stock changes should be accurately quantified so that they can be attributed to countries and sectors in the official record, the GHG inventory. Improving methodologies can increase the visibility of activities, thereby better reflecting their contribution to climate targets and enabling international cooperation under the Paris Agreement. The 2006 and 2019 IPCC Guidelines provide a technically sound methodological basis for national GHG inventories, and CCS and bio-CCS are included in the guidelines (IPCC, 2025). GHG inventories follow the principle that fossil CO2 emissions are reported in the sector and at the point in time they occur, and biogenic carbon is reported as stock changes under the relevant category in the LULUCF sector. If captured CO2 is perma­nent­ly stored, then the correspond­ing amount of CO2 can be fully deducted from the CO2 emissions of the sector where the CO2 capture takes place. There is no different­iated treatment between biogenic carbon and fossil carbon for CCUS activities in the guidelines. To main­tain consistency, captured CO2 intended for later use and short-term storage should not be deducted from the sector where the CO2 is captured except for when CO2 emissions are reported elsewhere in the inventory.
If comprehensively and consistently quantified and reported, CCS and CCU can support the production of low-emission energy and materials. CCS reduces emissions when fossil CO2 emissions from a sector are captured and stored permanently, while CCU delays emissions by chemically binding the CO2 in products. CCU products can also provide a substitution effect, reducing emissions by replacing fossil materials. Bio-CCS and DACCS can remove and permanently store CO2 from the atmosphere. Bio-CCU and DACCU products reduce emissions by replacing fossil or non-sustainable alternatives, and they can tempo­rarily remove CO2 from the atmo­sphere by chemically binding in products. In some cases, bio-CCU and DACCU can both remove CO2 from the atmosphere and reduce emissions, for example if a long-lasting product (removal) substitutes a fossil product (emission reduction).
According to the IPCC, carbon removal is a human activity that removes CO2 from the atmosphere, durably storing it in geological, terrestrial or ocean reservoirs or in products (IPCC, 2025b). Many interpretations exist for what constitutes a durable product. For example Smith et al. (2024) suggest that storage duration should be decades or more. In the policy context durability is typically referred to as permanence. Permanent storage according to the ETS Directive (2003/87/EC) is geological storage defined under CCS Directive (2009/31/EC) and products in which captured CO2 is permanently chemically bound, as further specified in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/2620 (EU, 2009, 2024a, 2024c). Currently permanent products include mineral carbonates used in construction products, but the list will be reviewed and rules revised to make certain CCU storages equivalent to CCS in the ETS (EC, 2024c). Quality criteria for permanent removals are being developed in parallel in the Carbon Removals and Carbon Farming (CRCF) regulation (EC, 2025b), and it seems that these criteria could be used to prove permanence if new compliance and/or voluntary carbon markets are introduced in the future (Bencini et al., 2025). The CRCF defines permanent as lasting several centuries, including “permanently chemically bound carbon in products”, and aims to specify what products could be considered permanent (EC, 2025b).

2.3 CO2 emission sources, transport and storage

CCUS relies on facilities to capture CO2, typically this includes installa­tions in industry, the energy sector and waste management. To provide an overview (Table 1) of the type and geographical distribution of large-point sources of CO2, we compiled 2023 emission data using ETS verified emissions and the most recent data provided by EEA (2024), which is based on European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (E-PRTR) Regulation and Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU data reports. For Norway, we complemented the data using National European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) data, as ETS verified emission reporting ceased for some Norwegian installations in 2017. We divided the emissions into fossil and biogenic emissions to provide an understanding of the potential for applying CCUS for both sources. In the data, emissions reported for Denmark and Iceland were not consistently divided into fossil- and biogenic emissions, so it was not possible to separate them in every category.
Table 1. Type and quantity of CO2 emissions from large point sources in Nordic countries based on E-PRTR compiled by EEA.
Emissions Mt CO2 yr-1
Denmark 1
Finland
Iceland 2
Norway 3
Sweden
Total
15.01
38.22
0.94
14.00
47.00
Total fossil
N/A
13.3
N/A
12.6
14.8
Total biogenic
N/A
24.9
N/A
1.4
32.2
Total biogenic %
N/A
65%
N/A
10%
68%
Power plants total
9.61
12.11
N/A
N/A
10.23
Power plants fossil
4.82
5.26
N/A
N/A
2.80
Power plants biogenic
4.78
6.85
N/A
N/A
7.43
Power plants biogenic %
50%
57%
N/A
N/A
73%
Forest industry total
0.03
17.75
0
0.55
22.81
Forest industry fossil
0.00
0.98
0
0.14
0.48
Forest industry biogenic
N/A
16.77
0
0.46
22.33
Forest industry biogenic %
N/A
94%
N/A
84%
98%
Other industry total
3.19
6.91
1.81
12.63
10.40
Other industry fossil
N/A
6.91
1.81
12.15
10.13
Other industry biogenic
N/A
0
N/A
0.48
0.27
Other industry biogenic %
N/A
0%
N/A
4%
3%
Waste management total
2.19
1.45
0
0.83
3.56
Waste management fossil
0.22
0.70
N/A
0.35
1.41
Waste management biogenic
1.98
0.75
N/A
0.48
2.15
Waste management biogenic %
90%
52%
N/A
58%
60%
1. Inconsistency in reporting fossil and biogenic emissions separately
2. Year 2022 used, as reporting does not continue further
3. Year 2017 used, as reporting does not continue further
Total-, fossil- and biogenic emissions reported in EEA 2025 using the most recent data from the year 2023 when possible, and divided into power plants, wood industry, other industries and waste management. The value after slash represents the CO2 emissions of energy sector, industry, waste management and biomass burning in the year 2023 reported in the national NIDs 2025.
We found that based on 2023 data, the largest potential for biogenic CO2 carbon capture in the Nordic countries is in the forest industry, mainly linked to pulp and paper production. The fossil CO2 capture potential is largest in the ‘other industries’ category, where the use of bioenergy is lower. Norway and Sweden hold the largest potential for capturing fossil carbon from industry emissions, followed by Finland. There are variations in how countries report emissions from waste incineration, which makes estimates uncertain. Currently municipal waste emissions are only included if waste is burned in ETS installations that utilize mixed fuels, or if countries have decided to voluntarily include certain waste incineration plants in the ETS.
The data compiled by EEA does not reflect all national emissions. The total emissions from energy, industrial processes and product use, waste, and CO2 emissions from biomass have been estimated in National Inventory Documents published in 2025 for inventory year 2023 (UNFCCC, 2025), and were 43.19, 73.21, 3.56, 44.33 and 87.66 Mt CO2 for Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, respectively. This shows that the PRTR database covers slightly more than half of the emissions for Finland and Sweden, around one third for Denmark and Norway, and around a quarter for Iceland. Even though ETS installa­tions in the PRTR represent only a portion of all emitters, they are large point sources and could be considered cost-effective options before carbon capture technologies become affordable for smaller installations.
Since the European Commission Communication on Sustainable Carbon Cycles (EC, 2021), several new initiatives, such as the Industrial Carbon Management Strategy, have been launched to support the expansion of CO2 transport and infrastructure (EC, 2023; KEFM, 2023a). Administrative procedures and permission structures are being reviewed under the EU Net-Zero Industry Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1735), and the planned Industrial Decarbo­ni­sation Accelerator Act (IDAA) (EC, 2025k; EU, 2024b). Cross-border infra­structure planning is supported by the Trans-European Energy Infra­structure Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2013/347) which can recognise specific projects as eligible for funding under the Connecting Europe Facility (EC, 2025h). A recent study shows that transport is a key enabler, and that early invest­ments will shape value chains by determi­ning locations and capacities of trans­port routes (Tumara et al., 2024). To facilitate the needed change, govern­ments could allocate state funding to generate over­capacity in open-access transport and storage infrastructure (EU, 2023c) and enabling information exchange nationally and inter­nationally. Studies also highlight that regulatory guidance and standard­ization are needed (IEA, 2021).
For many years, the London Protocol on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter prohibited geological storage of CO2 in the seabed, as well as transporting CO2 to storage in another country. Amendments to the London Protocol now allow geo­logical storage of CO2, while cross-border transport has not been ratified by enough countries. However, cross-border trans­portation is possible between countries that have ratified the amendment and have entered into arrangements (IEA, 2021). Currently, among the Nordic countries, Memoranda of Understanding exist between Denmark-Sweden, Norway-Denmark, Norway-Sweden, Finland-Denmark, Finland-Norway (IMO, 2025).
Some assessments indicate substantial technical storage potentials in Denmark (Hjelm et al., 2020) and Norway (Ministry of Energy Norway, 2024) in saline aquifers and depleted oil and gas fields. Iceland could have large potential for geological CO2 storage primarily through basalt minerali­zation (Snæbjörnsdóttir et al., 2014). Several storage projects have been permitted in Denmark, Iceland and Norway under specific conditions and following different approval processes (NCM, 2023). Finland lacks the aquifers for CO2 storage but might hold some potential for CO2 mineralization in near surface rock (Teir et al., 2010). CO2 storage is prohibited in Finland under the CCS-law transposing the CCS directive, and there are no sites that could be permitted (Ministry of the Environ­ment Finland, 2025a). Sweden is carrying out geological investigations for both onshore and offshore storage, but it is possible that there will not be any domestic capacity by 2030 (Swedish Energy Agency, 2024).
Nordic Council of Ministers I www.norden.org/publications I pub@norden.org